Well this is a big coup for Dakota Creek


#41

Bering Sea is right and Russia has part of it within their EEZ.
Better to go fishing there than to sit idle burning cash, while waiting for US authorities to take to their senses.
.
BTW; There used to be two Russian vessels (longliners) fishing in US waters for an American company and on American quotas back in the late 1980 early 1990’s. I don’t know if that is possible any more??


#42

Since when is that a limiting factor? Maybe they’ll follow China’s lead and claim territory all the way to within 12 NM of Norway?


#43

Maybe they follow US lead and think that the world is their oyster??


#44

well finally this tempest in a teapot seems to be subsiding

https://www.workboat.com/news/shipbuilding/senate-approves-jones-act-exemption-for-dakota-creek-industries/


#45

This isn’t a done deal yet, but it looks close. It’s been obvious from the outset that this one time exemption is essential and appropriate. It’s a shame that it has taken our feckless Congress so long to take action.


#46

It is obviously still possible that something or someone can still get in the way:

It appears that “foreign components” is only in reference to what make up the hull. The design and much of the equipment, which answer for much of the total cost and make the steel hull into a modern fishing vessel, is of foreign origin.

PS> When they say 1.5% is that by weight or by value??
If by value; as imported and declared on customs invoice, after being installed, or as % of value of completed vessel?


#47

To put it simply, the Jones Act requires that the hull and superstructure be built in the US. Some people claim that it must be built of US steel, but I’m not sure that is true.

Foreign machinery comes into the US with little or no duty and can be used.

I think a bare hull could be towed foreign for completion, but there is a 50% duty on “foreign repairs”, which I assume would include the cost of the foreign machinery.

The rules under the Jones Act are somewhat different for fishing vessels than for cargo ships.

Other laws may also apply if a vessel wants to qualify for certain types of tax advantages, financing, and subsidies.


#48

I mean, if the Mokihana is Jones Act…


#49

For the US factory trawlers that was “converted” in Norway in the 1980’s it was only the keel plates and a US “Builder’s Certificate” that was original, but i know that that was changed, although I don’t know to what extent.

Anyhow, the practise changed to conform. They set up design offices and some equipment manufacturing in the Seattle area, built the hulls and equipped the vessels at local yards.

Maybe steel were cheaper, the rules were more lenient, or there were other ways around it then??


#50

The rules regarding factory trawlers have changed, but I do not think that the Jones Act changed. I believe the changes came in one of the reauthorizations of the:

Magnusun-Stevens Act

which theoretically “Americanized” the Norwegian and Japanese factory trawler business in American waters.

The Japanese are gone, but it’s still mostly a Norwegian business fronted by a few Norwegians who became new US Citizens.